Political Crossfire Forums

[_Kev_]

All this debate over gay marriage has lead me to ask: Why does the government regulate/recognize marriage at all?

If it's to promote the healthy-raising of children, than why do we still force couples who either cannot or choose not to have kids under the same legal regimes? Why give them tax breaks/benefits if they have no kids?

If the recognition of marriage is to promote a sense of community and order, why limit it to heterosexuals? Don't gays work and spend money and develop community ties like everyone else?

[Enoch]

Personally, I think that it has to be an all or nothing when it comes to government recognition of marriage. If they wish to extend the recognition to heterosexuals, then they should also extend it to homosexuals. Or, they can remove all government recognition from all couples. I'd be fine with that too.

[George W Bush]

I dont think government should be in the middle of a couples agreement that they are eternally in love. Its sort of like 'they have granted them permission to be together'.
now, such idea <b>IS</b> the case when you consider the attempts to enhance governments role when purists want to government to ban gay marriage. It is fascist to allow government to mettle in affairs of the heart. But some in the USA actually desire such fascism.

[Piotr]

Governments recognise marriages as particular situations where certain laws apply, such as those protecting the rights of the married, those granting special benefits to the married, and those that allow the enforcing of divorce settlements and prenuptial agreements.

Hence the big deal.

However, in the mainstream, the legal and the vernacular seem to have gotten confused...

[eynon]

UrielsFyre wrote: Personally, I think that it has to be an all or nothing when it comes to government recognition of marriage. If they wish to extend the recognition to heterosexuals, then they should also extend it to homosexuals. Or, they can remove all government recognition from all couples. I'd be fine with that too.

I think government should recongnise marriage only to the exstent any couple draws up a lagal contract between them......

[John Galt]

The only rational government intrest has to do with procreation. Men and women are legally different, while barren women and fertile women are not legally distinguishable. So........... government can distingish to the point that there needs to be one and only one member of each sex in a marriage since they are trying to promote procreation, but they would violate equal protection by saying some certian 'defective' women (so to speak) cannot marry men (or vice versa).

But should they be involved? Absolutely not. But government also shouldn't be teaching our children. Or building our roads. Or many, many other things.

[Aim-64C]

There are two types of 'marriages' legal, and ceremonial. The one that gets the most attention is the ceremonial (which often involves the legal) marriage.

It's a difficult decision - that is for sure. Idealy - I'd like to say that Government should only recognize the marriage of a man and a woman - but I'm not sure that it can realistically be done or will provide much of a solution.

With current legality issues, inheritance laws, etc - the Government needs to recognize marriages or unions (or whatever else you can call them) to some degree. I don't want the doctors telling my wife that she can't see me in the hospital because of some stupid legality crap - I'd probably beat the crap out of him the moment I was able.

On the other hand - it could be to one's advantage to not have government be involved at all with marriages as I do not want any debts or taxes to fall on my wife in the event I die in an unexpected manner/time.

Sometimes I think life was better back when we had tribal forms of government rather than this complex mumbo-jumbo. Sometimes I wonder if that is what the majority opinion of the Founding Fathers - for our nation to be a somewhat loosely knit together system of 'tribes' (cities).... *sigh* then came lawyers and 'holy' legislation (putting loopholes into legislation intentionally)....

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: The only rational government intrest has to do with procreation. Men and women are legally different, while barren women and fertile women are not legally distinguishable. So........... government can distingish to the point that there needs to be one and only one member of each sex in a marriage since they are trying to promote procreation, but they would violate equal protection by saying some certian 'defective' women (so to speak) cannot marry men (or vice versa).

But should they be involved? Absolutely not. But government also shouldn't be teaching our children. Or building our roads. Or many, many other things. You have presented the "government interest in procreation" argument several times, without properly explaining (to the best of my knowledge) that intrest or why it is there. So, tell, what possibly interest could the government have in procreation as it relates to marriage?

[TNBiologist]

KRiche2 wrote: All this debate over gay marriage has lead me to ask: Why does the government regulate/recognize marriage at all?

If it's to promote the healthy-raising of children, than why do we still force couples who either cannot or choose not to have kids under the same legal regimes? Why give them tax breaks/benefits if they have no kids?

If the recognition of marriage is to promote a sense of community and order, why limit it to heterosexuals? Don't gays work and spend money and develop community ties like everyone else?

Part of the reason the governments recognize marriage is for legal reasons. If I die and don't have a will my wife gets all of my belongings/money (of which they will tax). If the government did not recognize my marriage and I die, who gets my stuff and who pays the tax associated with it. Also, you have medical reasons. If I am in a bad wreck and life support is all is keeping me alive who make the decision to keep me alive via machines or to pull the plug? As of now my wife makes any medical decisions for me by law but who makes those decisions if the government does not regognize marriage? Remember that for a non-family member to even have access to your medical info let alone make decisions you have to have all kinds of forms (hipa, ect) signed and made official.

As for the gay marriage, if gay people want to marry, let them. Some chruches will refuse to perform the marriage and I think that the church has the right to refuse but some will perform gay marriages so let them.

[George W Bush]

ultimately, i think its selfish for people to seek legislation banning gay marriage especially when they are married themselves.